f22-blocker-review
LOGS
17:00:18 <roshi> #startmeeting F22-blocker-review
17:00:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jan 26 17:00:18 2015 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:18 <roshi> #meetingname F22-blocker-review
17:00:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f22-blocker-review'
17:00:18 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
17:01:10 * kparal is here
17:01:21 <adamw> ahoyhoy
17:01:22 <roshi> hey kparal :)
17:01:33 * roshi is here too
17:01:42 <tonghuix> hi there
17:01:53 <roshi> welcome tonghuix :)
17:02:00 * danofsatx looks for more coffee.
17:02:13 * roshi just poured more coffee
17:02:32 <roshi> #topic Introduction
17:02:32 <roshi> Why are we here?
17:02:32 <roshi> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
17:02:36 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:02:39 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:02:41 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:02:44 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:02:46 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:02:48 * pschindl is here
17:02:49 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:02:52 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:02:55 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria
17:03:31 <roshi> welcome :)
17:03:42 <roshi> well, we have 2/1/2 to go through
17:03:49 <roshi> apologies for the late announcement
17:03:59 * roshi coulda swore he sent it on Friday
17:04:13 <roshi> alright, onto the ALpha proposals
17:04:14 <roshi> #topic (1184453) mouse cursor is invisible for 1 minute after log in, g-s-d seems to be stuck waiting for cups
17:04:17 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184453
17:04:19 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, cups, NEW
17:04:29 <danofsatx> +1
17:04:33 * danofsatx is prepped ;)
17:05:02 <roshi> nice
17:05:12 <adamw> i'm still not really sure this blocks alpha, i'd be more beta or final
17:05:14 <roshi> is missing mouse icon blocker?
17:05:16 <roshi> yeah
17:05:24 <adamw> if it never came *back* that'd be one thing
17:05:27 <kparal> there are some more issues, basically anything waiting for gnome-settings-daemon is stuck
17:05:39 <kparal> I noticed for example airplane mode detection
17:05:49 <kparal> some graphical glitches when waiting for icons
17:06:20 <adamw> we don't need to get too hung up on it if it's going to get fixed, but i'm -1 alpha +1 beta i gues
17:06:35 <roshi> same here
17:06:39 <kparal> there's a workaround though, a gsetting option that will disable the cursor plugin in g-s-d
17:06:40 <roshi> under which criteria though?
17:07:11 <kparal> I'm fine with both Alpha and Beta, no strong feelings there
17:07:21 <kparal> but it seems to be common, in my testing
17:07:32 <kparal> it's interesting that it seems to affect only certain setups
17:07:46 <kparal> as usual, I fall into the 'always affected' category
17:07:47 <roshi> which criteria, since there wasn't one I saw in the bz proposal
17:08:15 * oddshocks pops in
17:08:24 <kparal> adamw is our local criteria fuzzying guru
17:08:54 <kparal> *fudge-ing ?
17:08:57 <adamw> so we *are* supposed to judge the issues by the critreria
17:09:01 * danofsatx is digging for criteria now
17:09:02 <roshi> desktop panel?
17:09:07 <adamw> not decide whether we want it to be an issue then fuzz the criteria appropriately
17:09:08 <adamw> ;)
17:09:11 <roshi> yeah
17:09:26 <kparal> comment 5 stated the violated Alpha criteria, conditionally
17:09:48 <adamw> yeah, you can say it's a 'conditional' violation of any desktop criterion as it's hard to do any of 'em if you can't see the mouse
17:10:37 <danofsatx> Required Applications? If you've got no cursor, you can't run apps.
17:10:49 <adamw> imagine if the cursor never came back, we'd say something like 'conditional violation of "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments."
17:10:51 <adamw> yeah
17:11:06 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1184453 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug conditionally violates the Beta criterion by making it difficult/impossible to do anything within the GUI.
17:11:21 <danofsatx> ack
17:12:37 <adamw> ack
17:12:43 <adamw> um
17:12:52 <adamw> you didn't actually mention which criterion, plus that one is alpha not beta
17:12:53 <adamw> try:
17:13:14 <kparal> but nice try
17:13:15 <adamw> proposed #agreed - 1184453 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug conditionally violates the Alpha criterion ""It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments." by making it difficult/impossible to do anything within the GUI.
17:13:21 <adamw> d'oh
17:13:39 <adamw> proposed #agreed - 1184453 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta - This bug conditionally violates the Alpha criterion ""It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments." by making it difficult/impossible to do anything within the GUI, the violation is considered serious enough to block Beta but not Alpha
17:13:39 <kparal> let's say it violates Alpha, but is not that serious, so postponed to Beta
17:13:47 <kparal> right
17:13:47 <kparal> ack
17:13:48 <roshi> #chair adamw kparal danofsatx
17:13:48 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw danofsatx kparal roshi
17:13:49 <adamw> right, for conditional violations we get to pick
17:14:09 <roshi> ack
17:14:22 <danofsatx> ack
17:14:33 <pschindl> ack
17:14:48 <tonghuix> ack
17:14:51 <adamw> #agreed - 1184453 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta - This bug conditionally violates the Alpha criterion ""It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments." by making it difficult/impossible to do anything within the GUI, the violation is considered serious enough to block Beta but not Alpha
17:15:07 <roshi> who wants to secretarialize?
17:15:22 <adamw> i got it
17:15:28 <danofsatx> I don't know how, or I would.
17:15:51 <adamw> danofsatx: well first you need to be initiated into the brotherhood of stonecutters, obviously.
17:16:03 <danofsatx> done.
17:16:12 <adamw> *secret handshake*
17:16:20 * roshi confirms
17:16:22 <danofsatx> I've been stealing my son's Minecraft game ;)
17:16:28 <adamw> haha
17:16:53 <adamw> all the kids with their crafty mines
17:16:55 <adamw> get off my lawn
17:17:02 <roshi> danofsatx: you can take a crack at it - we can answer any questions you have
17:17:11 <roshi> if adamw doesn't mind, that is
17:17:53 <roshi> next bug?
17:18:06 <danofsatx> ok, so what's the first step - add #agreed statement to bug?
17:18:14 <danofsatx> anything to white board?
17:18:47 <roshi> jas
17:18:51 <adamw> danofsatx: i'll tutor you in #fedora-qa
17:19:06 <roshi> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#Secretary_Duty
17:19:29 <roshi> it's all nice and documented and things :D
17:19:33 <danofsatx> rgr adamw, thanks for the link roshi
17:19:35 <roshi> alright, bug two
17:19:45 <roshi> #topic (1185195) SELinux is preventing NetworkManager from 'create' accesses on the lnk_file .resolv.conf.NetworkManager.
17:19:48 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185195
17:19:51 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW
17:21:12 <adamw> +1, breaks networking.
17:21:26 <roshi> +1
17:21:28 <adamw> pick any old criterion, let's say "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager. "
17:21:33 <adamw> can't do that with no network!
17:21:46 <pschindl> +1
17:21:52 <adamw> could also use web browser.
17:22:38 <kparal> +1
17:22:39 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1185195 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug prevents anything requiring the network from working. Violates at least the following criterion: "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager."
17:22:46 <adamw> ack
17:22:49 <pschindl> ack
17:22:58 <danofsatx> +1, ack and all that
17:23:11 <roshi> #agreed - 1185195 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug prevents anything requiring the network from working. Violates at least the following criterion: "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager."
17:23:16 <roshi> onto the beta proposals
17:23:32 <roshi> #topic (1184933) login screen stuck after switching users
17:23:32 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184933
17:23:32 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, MODIFIED
17:23:41 <danofsatx> +1
17:23:57 <pschindl> +1
17:24:05 <kparal> we're working on it in the upstream report
17:24:07 <kparal> still issues
17:24:19 <kparal> gdm stuck, or xorg reset, or black screen
17:24:32 <tonghuix> it also appear sometimes in F21
17:24:42 <danofsatx> comment 2 says it was fixed. Was it, or not?
17:24:51 <kparal> not yet
17:25:10 <roshi> +1
17:25:56 <adamw> hmm
17:26:06 <adamw> i'm trying to remember if user switching is *intentionally* left out of that criterion
17:26:11 <adamw> it's always kind of had a history of flakiness
17:26:29 <adamw> this is an unusually bad case, though
17:27:14 <roshi> I'm of the opinion that it violates because it's an offered mechanism in the gui
17:27:17 * adamw checks the history
17:28:11 * adamw curses his five-year-younger self for not linking to "the discussion around this"
17:29:05 <kparal> I think this is pretty basic functionality
17:29:16 <adamw> bah, can't find it
17:29:21 <adamw> i'm OK with a provisional +1
17:29:22 <kparal> and all my family members curse gnome constantly because of this
17:29:25 <adamw> heh
17:29:39 <danofsatx> I feel it is, also. In me experience, Fedora is the only product it doesn't work in - even KDE doesn't work 100%.
17:29:46 <kparal> it's a bit difficult to teach them ctrl+alt+fx
17:30:25 <kparal> of course it would be nice if we put it directly into the criterion
17:30:50 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1184933 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a conditional violation of the criterion: "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops." As "Switch User" is an offered mechanism.
17:31:58 <kparal> ack
17:33:31 <danofsatx> ack
17:33:31 <pschindl> ack
17:33:51 <kparal> the explanation stands on water a bit, it is worth to include account switch directly into the criterion? should I propose it on the list?
17:34:06 <danofsatx> can I get a review of 1184453 before I continue with secretary duty?
17:34:09 <roshi> I think so
17:34:17 <roshi> sure danofsatx
17:34:22 <adamw> kparal: yeah, please do
17:34:28 <adamw> if we're going to block on it let's do it right
17:34:28 <kparal> ok
17:34:35 <kparal> second action item!
17:34:57 <roshi> #action kparal to propose criteria change to the list regarding user switching
17:35:40 <roshi> any more ack/nack/patch
17:35:42 <roshi> ?
17:35:44 <adamw> ack
17:36:03 <roshi> #agreed - 1184933 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a conditional violation of the criterion: "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops." As "Switch User" is an offered mechanism.
17:36:08 <roshi> #topic (1185117) UEFI dual-boot + Windows, cannot practically remove and install Fedora over an existing default opensuse installation
17:36:11 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185117
17:36:14 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:37:41 <danofsatx> umm.....I'm iffy on this one. It's specific in the bug to Suse, but it would apply to any previous installation with btrfs.
17:38:23 <adamw> yeah, i'm more +1 on this from the description than the summary
17:38:34 <adamw> sounds like it'd also affect a previous fedora install to lvm thinp, which is a thing we offer
17:38:39 <roshi> I want to reproduce this just to *see* it
17:38:48 <adamw> i don't really like the criterion...
17:38:55 <adamw> roshi: try installing over a thinp f21, i guess
17:38:59 <adamw> after you use it for a bit
17:39:46 <adamw> i'd probably prefer this as a partial violation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning bullet #1
17:39:59 <roshi> that's what I was just going to paste
17:40:13 <roshi> seems pretty clear it isn't reading things on disk correctly
17:40:24 <adamw> it's not really doing that 'correctly' for btrfs snapshots / lvm thinp, as described
17:40:41 <roshi> +1 under that criterion
17:40:51 <adamw> i'm ok with +1 beta for now, yeah, i trust cmurf
17:40:57 <adamw> we have time to adjust if anaconda folks disagree
17:41:41 <kparal> so, beta? it's proposed as final
17:41:53 <adamw> sure, but it seems like a reasonable beta blocker under that criterion
17:41:56 <adamw> we can twiddle it later if necessary
17:41:58 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1185117 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a violation of the Beta criterion: "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes..."
17:41:58 <kparal> ok
17:42:13 <adamw> roshi: patch to say beta
17:42:18 <roshi> danofsatx: ^^ that bug is moving from proposed Final to Beta
17:42:21 <roshi> it does
17:42:37 <adamw> it says it's a violation of Beta criterion, but not explicitly that it's a beta blocker
17:42:55 <adamw> you can't assume a mapping from one to the other
17:43:07 <danofsatx> roger, got it
17:43:19 <adamw> in the past when we only reviewed for one milestone at a time it was fine not to say explicitly, but now we're reviewing for all milestones i think we should make it clear
17:43:19 <roshi> the mapping has traditionally been done by the secretary, aiui
17:43:26 <adamw> roshi: it's good to have it in the meeting logs
17:43:39 <roshi> I just always put AcceptedBlocker that space
17:43:51 <adamw> we used to review for one milestone at a time so it was pretty clear
17:43:57 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1185117 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta - This bug is a violation of the Beta criterion: "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes..."
17:44:02 <adamw> ack
17:44:02 <roshi> yeah
17:44:28 <roshi> I just wanted that field to be pretty standard if I ever had to write something to parse the logs from these meetings for statistics or something
17:44:36 <adamw> ah, i see
17:44:52 <adamw> well the ones where i ran the meetings would be busted anyway :P
17:44:57 <adamw> regex! regex!
17:44:59 <kparal> ack
17:45:00 <roshi> adding things to fields makes that a lot harder :p
17:45:08 <roshi> lol
17:45:18 <roshi> #agreed - 1185117 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta - This bug is a violation of the Beta criterion: "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes..."
17:45:25 <adamw> tell you what, when you write something and start cursing, file an issue for writing the regex and assign it to me :P
17:45:30 <kparal> you can always write proposed #agreed {json}
17:45:45 <kparal> if that seems easier
17:45:48 <adamw> haha
17:45:52 <roshi> will do, adamw :p
17:45:53 <roshi> lol
17:45:56 <roshi> alright, last bug
17:45:57 <roshi> #topic (1182652) Missing high contrast icon
17:45:57 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182652
17:45:57 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, setroubleshoot, NEW
17:46:12 <adamw> proposed for final i guess?
17:46:14 <adamw> +1
17:46:25 <kparal> +1
17:46:29 <roshi> +1
17:46:30 <kparal> regression from F20
17:46:32 <kparal> F21
17:46:58 <pschindl> +1
17:47:02 <tonghuix> +1
17:47:56 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1182652 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the criterion: "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy."
17:48:48 <pschindl> ack
17:49:17 <danofsatx> ack
17:49:29 <adamw> ack
17:49:40 <roshi> #agreed - 1182652 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the criterion: "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy."
17:49:44 <roshi> well, that's it
17:49:48 <adamw> man, this whole 'review everything as we go along' plan is way way better. why didn't we do this earlier.
17:49:49 <roshi> #topic Open Floor
17:50:20 <roshi> same reason as always, adamw : $REASONS
17:50:22 <danofsatx> no FE's?
17:50:28 <roshi> not in freeze
17:50:34 <danofsatx> duh
17:50:36 <roshi> no need for an exception :p
17:51:02 <roshi> anybody have anything for open floor?
17:51:10 * roshi sets the fuse...
17:51:34 <kparal> adamw: do you think it will save us from 20 pending blockers every week during the release cycle? I wouldn't  be that optimistic
17:51:59 <roshi> I foresee some longer meetings
17:52:28 <roshi> but I also see it being easier to keep things under control throughout a release
17:52:46 <adamw> kparal: i think it'll help...
17:52:49 <adamw> but hey, i'm an optimist
17:52:53 <roshi> and not having a couple weeks towards the end of a milestone having few and then getting a ton the next week
17:52:58 <adamw> good lord, my desktop is royally screwed up right now.
17:53:05 <danofsatx> ok, I think I did  the BZ updating correctly....anyone care to double check?
17:53:17 <roshi> it's called GNOME, adamw :p
17:53:19 * roshi ducks
17:53:20 <adamw> danofsatx: i'll check it over later
17:53:25 <danofsatx> rgr
17:53:35 <adamw> roshi: heh. no, it's freeipa stuff
17:53:42 <adamw> it's completely crapped itself
17:53:48 <adamw> (that's a highly technical description)
17:53:53 <roshi> haha
17:54:09 <roshi> but srsly, how have users tolerated this global modal thing?
17:54:22 <adamw> hum?
17:54:25 <adamw> global modal thing?
17:54:33 <roshi> the gnome password trap
17:54:38 <adamw> oh, yeah, that's annoying.
17:54:49 <adamw> i believe i have documented my workaround procedure in the bug
17:54:53 <danofsatx> I didn't tolerate it, I switched to KDE. mo bettah'
17:54:55 <adamw> "curse, punch the desk, hit esc and do it again'
17:55:07 <roshi> that's what I've currently implemented as well
17:55:51 <roshi> danofsatx: I like my DE's like I like my bathroom floors - tiled.
17:56:45 <roshi> 3...
17:57:32 <roshi> 2...
17:58:35 <roshi> 1...
17:58:41 <roshi> thanks for coming folks!
17:58:54 <roshi> #endmeeting